The economic approaches to exchange rate management have evolved over the past decades. Earlier work dealt with the trade dimension and more specifically analyzed the impact of the removal of relative price distortions penalizing exported goods (e.g. Krueger, 1978; Balassa, 1982). Starting mid-eighties, a broader approach to exchange rate management emerged. Exchange rate has to be perceived as an instrument to adjust the whole economy to changes in variables affecting a country’s long term internal and external equilibrium, the so-called ‘‘fundamentals’’ (see Edwards, 1988). In this perspective the new approach questions the former wisdom that an overvaluation could be seen as a potential vehicle for economic growth: the export-oriented agricultural sector being indirectly taxed while the manufactured sector would benefit from cheap imported inputs. Cottani et al. (1990) and Ghura and Grennes (1993) evidenced a negative relation between overvaluation and economic growth. The normative conclusion then emerged that countries should keep their exchange rate as close as possible to the equilibrium level. Rodrik (2008, 2009) recently disputed such a perspective, especially for economies that have to achieve the structural changes we referred to above. He provided theoretical arguments calling for an active disequilibrium exchange rate strategy taking the form of a deliberate undervaluation of the real value of the national currency.